Use Your myFollowTheMoney Login

Or

Welcome to myFollowTheMoney, the customized e-mail alert community with deeper access to the unique and powerful data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

By creating a free myFollowTheMoney account, you’ll not only be able to download our data for your own exploration, you can also receive updates from us on the issues you care about. In addition, you’ll be signed up to receive our quarterly newsletter, packed with insider information on the hot topics facing money in state politics.

We will not share, rent, or sell your e-mail address with any other individual or organization.

Best Practices for Independent Spending: Part OneUpdated January 18, 2012by Anne Bauer, July 14, 2011

What is independent spending? Organizations and individuals spend millions of dollars every election cycle supporting or opposing candidates and ballot measures-without coordinating or consulting with the candidate or measure committee. Most of the time, a state calls these independent expenditures.
In Part One of a two-part review of disclosure of this independent spending in the 50 states, researchers at the National Institute on Money in State Politics reviewed each state's law to define best practices for independent spending disclosure.

The opinions and views in the report do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Institute's funders.

Best Practices for Independent Spending: Part One

Last updated January 18, 2012

In the first of a two-part review of disclosure of independent spending in the 50 states, researchers at the National Institute on Money in State Politics reviewed each state’s law. While Part One does not reflect actual practice, it is important to note that before there can be meaningful disclosure, there must be sound reporting laws.

The first key to effective disclosure is to define “independent expenditure” and “electioneering communication” in statute at least as robustly as the federal definition. The next is to require entities engaging in that defined type of political speech to disclose it.

Disclosure of independent spending should include:

the name and contact information for the chair and/or treasurer of the spender,

the date the expenditure was made,

purpose of the expenditure,

amount of the expenditure,

the vendor name and contact information,

the name of the candidate or measure mentioned in the electioneering communication or targeted by the independent expenditure,

and if an independent expenditure, whether the expenditure was made to support or oppose the targeted candidate or measure.

See the table below for a breakdown of independent spending disclosure requirements in the 50 states.

As of July 2011, nine states met this standard; Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut1, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Washington.

Twelve states don’t require any disclosure of independent expenditures, and 32 states either don’t require disclosure of electioneering communications or don’t have a definition as strong as the federal definition. Of those, three states - Florida, Hawaii, and Illinois - come close to the federal definition of electioneering communication.

Patterns emerged as the Institute collected and analyzed the disclosure reports in select states.2 Obviously, how expenditures are disclosed in practice determines whether citizens can actually access meaningful information. For example, sometimes funding takes a tortuous route from its original source to its destination via a series of shell PACs. Click here to see a graphic of this kind of money transportation.

TABLE 1: Essential Reporting Requirements for Independent Spending

State

Independent Expenditures Reported

Electioneering Communications Reported

Expenditure Purpose Reported

Target Reported

Target Amount Reported

Position Reported

AK

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, unless expenditure has multiple targets

Yes

AL

No

No

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

AR

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

AZ

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

CA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

CO

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, unless expenditure has multiple targets

Yes

CT

Yes

No (unidentifiable)

Yes

Yes

Yes, unless expenditure has multiple targets

Yes

DE

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

FL

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

GA

No (unidentifiable)

No (unidentifiable)

Yes

Yes

Yes, unless expenditure has multiple targets

No

HI*

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

IA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, for IEs only

No

Yes, for IEs only

ID

Yes

Yes

Yes

In some cases

In some cases

In some cases

IL

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

IN

No

No

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

KS

Yes

No

Yes (for non-individuals)

Yes

Yes

No

KY

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

LA

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

MA

Yes

Yes

Yes

In some cases

Yes

In some cases

MD

No

No

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ME

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

MI

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

MN

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

MO

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

MS

Yes

No

Optional

Optional

Optional

Optional

MT

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

NC

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

ND

Some IEs targeting ballot measures are reported

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

NE

Yes

No

In some cases

Yes

Yes

In some cases

NH

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NJ

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

NM

No

No

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NV

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

NY

No

No

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

OH

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

OK

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

OR

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

PA

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

RI

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

SC

No

No

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

SD

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

TN

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

TX

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes, unless expenditure has multiple targets

Yes

UT*

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

VA

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

VT

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

WA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

WI

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

WV

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

WY

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

*While all independent spending is disclosed, there is not always a distinction made between the two types.

Part Two of the Institute’s analysis will look at timeliness of reporting, ease of public access to reports, and disclosure of contributions to committees making such expenditures - especially original source disclosure.

1. Connecticut defines electioneering communications, but such expenditures are not always distinguishable on the reporting form from other expenditures.

2. The Institute selected states for review based on their law and reporting practices as of 2010. Reports were reviewed for the 2006, 2008, and 2010 election cycles.

This report was posted on July 14, 2011 by Anne Bauer.Let us know what you thought! Click here and give us some feedback.